The future of European security and defence arrangements has been moved decisively to the top of the continent's agenda by the Kosovo crisis. This is true for all European states, whether neutral like Ireland, non-aligned, or members of military alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in which there is a common commitment to defend if another member is attacked. Whatever the outcome of the confrontation between NATO and Serbia, the European Union's security and defence competences will be developed in coming years either by drawing on NATO assets or by creating a new defence and peacekeeping force to replace NATO, as is now advocated by the Labour Party leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn. Ireland's debate on these questions has until recently been confined mainly to policy specialists as to detail and conducted mainly on the margins of mainstream politics. It inadequately addresses the responsibilities and obligations arising from EU membership. It is also unsatisfactory because of the vocabulary about neutrality in which it is usually conducted; neutrality is an important part of Ireland's state identity but the core values it invokes are diffuse and often in contradiction with one another - especially on issues concerned with the pooling of sovereignty and participation in international security organisations.
Three developments have decisively changed these circumstances for the Government and the electorate. The Kosovo war has brought home the centrality of European security and raised the key question of who should be responsible for it. The crisis will accelerate the EU's debate on security and defence, stimulated by the endorsement of British and French proposals for merging the Western European Union and the EU at NATO's summit in Washington last weekend. And, thirdly, the Government's decision to join the Partnership for Peace programme (PfP), sponsored by NATO to share military training, expertise and exercises for peacekeeping tasks between allied and neutral States, has raised the issue of military co-operation for political parties and voters alike.
The combination of these three developments has decisively changed the context of Ireland's political debate about European security and defence issues. It has undermined the political case made by the Government that the decision to join PfP does not require a referendum. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Fianna Fail Party said before the last election that Ireland should not join PfP and that any decision to do so should be mandated by a referendum. They changed their mind on both counts when they came into government, in what many saw as an opportunist and cynical gesture relating to such a core issue of sovereignty. They now say the decision to join PfP is an executive and parliamentary matter on which the electorate can express views when they vote in the European and local elections on June 11th. The Attorney General's admittedly sound advice that legally a referendum is not necessary on joining PfP does not satisfactorily address the much stronger political case now for holding one.
The Government still has time to add a referendum on joining PfP to the one on local government being held on June 11th - the legislation for that referendum was published yesterday. It should campaign for a decision in favour of joining PfP, which would be right for Ireland. Membership of PfP is voluntary, bilateral, and flexible, and would enable this State to avail of best practice in contemporary peacekeeping tasks. It does not involve alliance commitments.